- 7 -
later at 3:00 p.m. on February 13, 2002. At a pre-trial
conference the morning of February 13, 2002, petitioner for the
first time raised the question whether he was entitled to various
deductions, including a dependency exemption deduction for his
daughter, certain alleged personal and business expense
deductions, and losses from trading in options. None of these
items were raised in the petition, and, with one exception, we
decline to entertain these issues at this late date.5 See Rule
34(b)(4). Allowing petitioner to belatedly raise these issues
would be unfair to respondent. See Toyota Town, Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-40, affd. sub nom. Bob Wondries
Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner, 268 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2001).
The one exception concerns petitioner’s dependency exemption
claim. Petitioner is unmarried and has a daughter who lives with
him. Petitioner’s daughter was 10 years old during the year at
issue and received approximately $900 a month or $10,800 per year
from Social Security. Petitioner did not pay more than half of
the daughter’s support. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to
claim a dependency exemption deduction for his daughter.
5 We note, however, that petitioner has not substantiated the
alleged business deductions and it appears that even if we were
to accept the evidence, such as it is, with regard to the
personal deductions, the amount would not exceed the basic
standard deduction contained in sec. 63(b). Finally, while
petitioner did engage in option trading, the record is devoid of
evidence from which we could even make an estimate of his gains
and losses.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011